No Child Left behind and Students with Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools

Abstract

The recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act (2001) places unprecedented pressure on schools to raise the academic achievement of all students. Through annual testing of students, schools are to use the results of these assessments to demonstrate that they are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The provisions in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) apply to all states, districts, and schools equally, regardless of size or location. There are concerns, however, about applying the law's provisions in rural schools. Specifically, concerns surround the measurement of adequate yearly progress. In many rural schools, the number of students is small and this is especially true when disaggregating results for subgroups. The current study investigated the implementation of accountability reforms in rural schools and sought to identify schools that were experiencing better than expected results for students, especially students with disabilities. Findings indicate that validly measuring AYP in small rural schools is especially problematic given the small number of students in the subgroup, volatility in year to year scores, and changes in service delivery policies. Implications for accountability and policy are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnold (2000). Rural schools: Diverse needs call for flexible policies. (Policy Brief). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Beeson,

, & Strange,

(2002). Why rural matters: The need for every state to take action on rural education. Retrieved November 14, 2002, 2002, from www.ruralchallengepolicy.org/streport.org

Council for Exceptional Children (2004, November). The new IDEA: CEC's summary of significant issues. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved December 7, 2004 from http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/IDEA_120204.pdf

Freitas,

(1992). Managing smallness: Promising fiscal practices for rural school. Retrieved October 21, 2003, from http://www.ruraledu.org/newsroom/teachpay.htm

Fuhrman,

, & Elmore,

(Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: New York: Teacher's College Press.

Fuhrman,

S. H.

(1999). The new accountability (Policy Brief: Reporting Issues in Education Reform). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy in Research in Education.

GAO. (2004). Additional assistance and research on effective strategies would help small rural districts. Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office.

Goldstein,

(2004). Highly qualified? Education Week, 23 (17), 62–67.

Hanushek,

E. A.

, & Raymond,

M. E.

(2003). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In West

M. R.

& Peterson

P. E.

(Eds.), No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 127–151). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

10.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 611 et seq (1997).

11.

Linn,

R. L.

(2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 1–15.

12.

Linn,

R. L.

, & Baker,

E. L.

(2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”. Educational Researcher, 31 (6), 3–16.

13.

McLaughlin,

M. J.

, & Thurlow,

M. L.

(2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17 (4), 431–451.

14.

National Education Association. (2004). Rural education. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from http://www.nea.org/rural/lacpapers-rural.html

15.

No Child Left Behind Act, 2102(4) (2001).

16.

O'Day,

, & Smith,

(1992). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In Fuhrman

(Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

O'Day,

J. A.

(2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In Fuhrman

& Elmore

(Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 293–329). New York: Teachers College Press.

18.

Reeves,

(2003). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for rural schools and districts. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/implicate/index.html

19.

Richard,

(2003). Montana leads choir of rural concerns of “No Child: law. Education Week, 22 (29), 26.

20.

Rural School and Community Trust. (2003). Rural teachers earn significantly less than urban, suburban counterparts. Retrieved February 18, 2004, from http://www.ruraledu.org/newsroom/teachpay.htm

21.

Rural School and Community Trust. (2004). Few rural schools benefit from new “Flexibility” rules for No Child Left Behind highly qualified teacher provisions. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.ruraledu.org/rpm/rpm606e.htm

22.

Save the Children. (2002). America's forgotten children: Child poverty in rural America. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from http://savethechildren.org/usa/report_download.asp

23.

Schwartzbeck,

T. D.

, Prince,

C. D.

, Redfield,

, Morris,

, & Hammer,

P. C.

(2003). How are rural districts meeting the teacher quality requirements of No Child Left Behind? Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://www.aasa.org/government_relations/rural/Rural_Teacher_Quality_Study.pdf

24.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.